[Python-Dev] [PEP 576/580] Comparing PEP 576 and 580

[INADA Naoki]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:55 PM Jeroen Demeyer <J.Demeyer at ugent.be> wrote:
>
> On 2018-07-31 12:10, INADA Naoki wrote:
> > Surely, they should understand they must use CCALL_* flags instead of
> > METH_* flags when implementing fast-callable object.
>
> Yes indeed. But implementing a fast-callable object is quite
> specialized, not something that ordinary extension writers would care
> about. And if they don't care about performance, tp_call remains supported.
>
> More generally: with PEP 580, everything from the documented C API
> remains supported. So people can write extensions exactly as before.
> They only need to care about PEP 580 if they want to use the new
> features that PEP 580 adds (or if they used undocumented internals).
>
>
> Jeroen.

100% agree.  I never claimed fastcall support for callable object is important.
>From my first mail in this thread, I prefer PEP 580, although I was
not 100% sure
PEP 580 is better.

My point (why I'm not 100% sure PEP 580 is better) was simplicity /
straightforwardness.
I just explained it as "understandability for extension author".

Method types (PyCFunction / CyFunction / method_descripter, etc) are
callable type.
So

  "make simple and fast callable protocol, then implement complicated method
types behind the protocol".

seems much straightforward than

  "Add complicated protocol for method types, then callable can be implemented
like method type".


If there are no drawback in PEP 576, CCall can be used behind it like:

  .tp_ccalloffset = offsetof(...),
  .tp_extcall = PyCCall_ExtCall,   // filled by PyType_Read()

But PEP 576 is not perfect:

* FASTCALL | KEYWORDS is not stable yet, and signature of ext_call is
not flexible enough.
* LOAD_METHOD support is not straightforward
* I want something like CCall anyway, especially for "direct call with
C type" optimization in the future.

That's why I prefer PEP 580.
When I wrote first mail in this thread in last week, I'm about 70% sure.
Since I can't find performance critical "tp_call" usage (*), I'm 90%
sure for now.

(*) Actually speaking, I think tp_new is called more often than tp_call.

-- 
INADA Naoki  <songofacandy at gmail.com>